Originally Posted by sliccy
Now that this question is answered for me, I think I have another one.
It's regarding the Law of Attraction and Science. Now, I have heard many of the gurus saying that LOA is scientifcally proven, Bob Proctor being one of the main ones. But I have stumbled across criticism on varies occasions. The most recent one, I was just Googleing some LOA material and I wanted to see what wiki had on it.
|
What is scientific proof?
(Ta-tsu-wa gives a very good answer in that respect.)
I find that many people claiming to be followers of science are nothing more than skeptics out for a fight. True science is not about saying, there's no formula for it; there's no proof for it, therefore it can't be valid or true. True science looks at cases of known conditions giving known results.
In the case of things like the LOA, it is not really a case of known conditions giving indeterminate results, but more a case of indeterminate conditions giving indeterminate results. What I mean is that, whilst people seem to be saying "If I think in this way, I should get these results" and it's showing that they sometimes do get those results and sometimes don't, the problem is not in the Law of Attraction (the process behind getting from the conditions to the results), but in not being full clear about the "thinking in this way" part. Nobody has measured accurately what the known conditions (the thinking) are at the start to be able to show that the results are consistent. This comes back to what I was saying way back up in this thread, where the conscious mind can be thinking one thing (e.g. "I am rich beyond belief and fully healthy") and the unconscious mind is really believing something else (e.g. "I've got no money, I don't know how I'll make any money, and I'm always ill"). Scienctific proof in this area would be trying to measure the conscious thought rather than taking account of all the other factors of the state of the mind of the person thinking them.
We can only scientifically prove something when we know how to scientifically measure it.
Science knows that thoughts, intelligence etc. exist, but they have no real means of accurately measuring those things at a single point in time for a particular person, nor do they have the means of controlling the experiment to prevent outside influence on those conditions on their way to achieving the result.
We then have what others (non-scientists) are determining as "scientific proof". This comes from observational proof. e.g. If we do this thing, we, more often than not, get a result close to what was desired and, more often than not, clearly different from what would have happened had we not done that thing. So why is there not 100% success rate? Again it comes down to the same as the scientists, not fully being able to measure the staring conditions or control the experiment as it progresses, due to there being too many influencing factors.
Now, the skeptics may say "you have no proof" and "it can't be measured". You could easily retort by pointing out that science has no proof for a lot of it's "theories" yet they still call it science and they still proceed to experiment with it, believing it to be the truth because they have seen "some" evidence to suggest it may be true.
A classic example is that science believes there is something called an electron. Nobody in science has actually seen an electron, it's never had it's dimensions measured. All they can say is that they can carry out certain conditions which generate these theoretical electrons, and they appear to act consistently to give consistent results in most cases.
Then, take a look at the double-slit experiment (
Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) which fires sub-atomic particles (which can be electrons) through a thin plate containing two slits. If the particles are left to their own devices, they appear on a screen on the other side of the plate making a defraction pattern (caused due to "wave" like properties a bit like waves in water when you drop a stone in). If, however, the particles are observed to try and determine which of the two slits they are passing through, they change from having "wave" properties, to having "particle" properties. This is called particle-wave duality. The particle "acts" differently depending on whether it is being observed or not.
The power of intention eh!
So, in my mind (and I'm both scientifically minded as well as spiritually minded in case you hadn't noticed
), I
know for myself that there is scientific evidence of the power of intention, and thus the law of attraction which follows this intention.
|
There was a section specifically on the criticism LOA has received. Most of it directed towards The Secret.
|
They are just picking on it because it's one of the most recent and well known.
I would simply critisize The Secret because it limited itself somewhat and tended to focus on material/financial gain; which is not what the LOA is all about.
My question is what do you do when you read something like this that trys to disprove what you on one level or another know to be true. How do you stay "positive".
.. cut ..
But what do you guys do when something like this comes up? Do you just ignore it? Or do you try to find another scientific research to disprove theres? I mean, what do you do?
|
I simply let it go. (although you wouldn't have guess from all my post above hehe!)
There will always be people who argue against things.
By experiencing these things for ourselves and understanding them in our own way and
knowing for ourselves that they are true and work, that is all that matters.
I sometimes chuckle at those who try to "disprove" what I've put into practice myself and I know works. I am the one who has practical experience of it working and they are not. Their loss.
Hugs
Giles
p.s. Sorry for another long post, although you gotta admit this really is an interesting thread.
